Posted by: Sk | February 15, 2009

8 Gossip, yellow press and valuable information

It’s an evidence that the changes introduced into general social behaviour through mass media as mainly developped after 1945, have produced horrible confusions concerning what is to be said and not, how and who by. Even about the value and signification of what could be called ways of talking.It’s true that official statements are usually quite boring as trying to keep balances in image suspended of many ancestral rules whose exact signification is difficult to grasp. It’s usually called ‘keep appearance’, as it is known that the fact of not doing so causes gravest damage to image, which on the other hand may cause financial troubles along with psychological disturbances whose origin is the pressure deriving of a psychic mass believing a certain number of things. Thus, as the very fact of having one lover, may be understood by some parts of population as meaning the person in question may have 200, the same may be induced to do things he/she actually doesn’t want to do, just because high parts of population are convinced it were so.Consequently, people try dealing with private life as secretly as possible, in order to avoid unwanted side effects. On the other hand though, it is impossible avoiding or even stop the flourishing popular imagination, who associates through quite ‘mythological’ turns of mind, people to the most incongruous situations, even more so if these people leave on imagination some mark that wakes up all sorts of configurations of all types.As remarked through all the endless story concerning Inés de la Fressange in www.robios.wordpress.com, the very fact of being confronted to a visual impression as deriving from someone appearing in different situations, allows the development of a certain number of stories (the hooligan and the Russian Prince) which are perhaps linked to reality somehow, but show obvious diformations as resulting from imagination.It seems as if the impression provoked on the unconscious by some ‘public person’ could be devided into two parts: the one which attaches the image to a certain number of information as seeming to have official character (date of birth, activity, personal statements, etc.), which creates some hole in its attachment to what is left as general impression in the mind, hole which is filled by all sorts of fantastic characters and stories, as perfectly visible through the stories concerning Ricky Martin, made up around the character of Inés de la Fressange. (See: www.inesdelafressange.wordpress.com : Spanish gossip)At the same time the human mind is trying to fill gaps through hypothetical constructions, the very unconscious of the public person as leaving marks through gestures, tones, appearances in general, is worked out by curious observers of the structuring of ‘important’ people, as their way of being and doing will become referential for whole lots of others certainly lacking of some kind of originality.In Spain, this was mainly the realm of homosexual male, who thus were somehow left free in their prodigality of imagination, as their comments were usually quite useful in the working out of more important data. This custom, whose obvious continuation shows itself clearly even in electronical times through usually forums were they continue in their deepest analysis of psychic types without anyone’s permission, is though clearly to be differentiated from common yellow press or wicked gossip.How to make the difference? Yellow press pretends to some kind of factual truth, which is not always the case, or which does consist in gravest attempts against someone’s privacy, even if it is a ‘fact’. Facts are not necessarily of public domain, and consequently the fact of pretending that it is enough for it to be a fact in order to be allowed publishing this or the other information, does not justify itself (to my understanding suable, even more so if concerning public people who have always to handle with the pressure deriving of the divulgation of information.)This is more or less the pattern of Spanish press behaviour, where at least until I lived there (1988), even criminals were handled with ‘el presunto asesino’ (the presumed murder)  without name (or only initials), for the preservation of anonymity, as it was thought that it could be the judge decides he was not the criminal, so that the publication of the name may be at the origin of gravest damage in case it were a wrong presumption, and in any case could influence the court’s decision through public pressure. (Things look quite differently in Germany, where already in 1970 Heinrich Böll writes a book describing the horrible consequences of such a public ‘accusation’ made on a woman by a Bild-Zeitung who finishes by being proved innocent and though commits suicide.) Thus, in Spain the invasion even of ‘aerian’ territory of a private house is considered a crime: pictures obtained for example of Stéphanie de Monaco through zoom while she’s taking a bath somewhere were suable in Spain. Which is to say, that it is factually forbidden to take a picture of someone inside of his property, and even outside without permission. The same for pictures taken with permnission inside of someone’s property, that can’t be published without the house owner’s permission.The problem deriving of these very strict legislations is that some people may cover themselves in the most criminal activities pretending to these legal protections. Problem of catholic priests accused of paedophilia in the United States in 2004. Problem of some Greek parliament member spending his earnings with transexuals around 2002, and so on.How far may private life be protected by law and how far is it of need sometimes to reveal a certain number of facts in order to avoid people who are involved in some kind of criminal activity become referential for others who can’t absorb immediately the consequences of some appearance in its effect on moral, social or even financial fields?The question is almost bitter, as it does not seem to deserve a proper answer, and though it should as it determines the how far courts may punish excessive liberty in the publication of information.Fundamentally it seems an evidence that the spreading of information, images, constructions, which without having any other meaning but to harm someone’s reputation, are not based on proofed facts and/or are violating private space, are suable. How though handle the ‘proofed fact’ which as such may be harming, of no one’s concern and as such causing moral damage, or other, to the one concerned?Let’s take the example of Inés de la Fressange. Spanish law allows the free dealing with names of people of the ‘public domain’ as long as not infringing law. Thus, the making up of stories, even more so if framed as stories, is not factually forbidden. Two problems appear: one is the wicked use of this in order to transmit all sorts of vile information (case: Manual of a soldier), second, it may happen accidentally, that the information as gathered does give birth to stories which are actually linked to reality, because the unconscious is working out residual information and putting it into the right order.If in ‘The manual of a soldier’ the language does allow in reconstruction to affirm almost bluntly that the affected lieutenat general had never made any kind of experiment as described, but finishes by showing only that, if ever (the person associated corresponded actually to the described psychic type), she was the possible victim of some kind of psychopath, the constructions on Inés de la Fressange seem to point at the evidence of facts, which I got aware of much later. Why?The ps type taking the pictures at her home in around 2002 shows an obvious female homosexual character, which may become quite agressive sexually, which shows itself also in some distorsion made on the pictures caused by a superposition in which the first layer has been wickedly altered. A ps type like the one of Inés de la Fressange keeps itself fundamentally in image: a sexual agression, even more so if homosexual, (as may be understood some kind of proposition, even only induced) may be at the origin of fright, rejection, agression and other. Fright may be at the origin of an attempt of reassurance, and this obtained through some happily appearing pretender, who may be Russian (corresponding in ps). And who probably pretends to more than he is (Prince) covering actually a hooligan … Of course I have no evidence for the latter, but it is an evidence that the observation of pictures of which derive subsidiary data, gives birth to all sorts of imaginations which, if well analyzed, may even allow the reconstruction of a whole situation.Thus, even ‘wicked’ information, if wisely delt with, give light in distorsion on weakness which may be of importance for a certain number of considerations: in cases there is crime, in cases of heavy financial transactions (testing of reliability), etc. It is obvious that the forbidding of Channel 5 (the scent of gossip) does actually deprive interested people from vital information.There is though some kind of information which finishes by saying nothing but only something about the wickedness of who ever furthers it. What I called the ‘German gossip’. German gossip may even seem to take very positive turns: the idealization of Diana of Wales, for example, who shows some weakness in character that does not allow her dealing with excessive notoriety: the fact of pushing her to notoriety does in fact nothing but pushing her to death. The difference here is that information is used in the deliberate purpose of distroying someone by whatever means, causing his death, morally, socially, physically. If it is possible to establish a link between an information and a damage of whatever kind, it seems to be of need to protect the person by legal means.This though may be restrained in a certain number of cases: the criminal will of course not want his criminal activity to be known. If he/she gets ‘depressed’ because of the publishing of such information, if ever established, it becomes of evidence that it is caused by the criminal activity itself, and not by the publication, which becomes even more so of need in cases or places where such activity is covered by a certain number of judicial entities or the press blocks the access of reliable information to the public, in which case it would still have been possible to publish information in more ‘diplomatic’ ways.Going a little beyond Spanish law in this that I recognize the utter need of making public a certain number of facts which are of importance for perhaps many, I adapt my usual dealing with reality inside of this frame. Thus, I may justify even quite aggressive attacks on some people whose behaviour may affect further environments, were it familiar, professional or social, in cases where it has become obvious that the attempt of solving a question through a court, has remained without answer against all proofs.If I were a possibly existing Sask, I would though prohibit the ‘Manual of a soldier’, as the character possibly recognizible. In this case though it is not necessary to file a claim. It is enough to send an e-mail to which if not answered to, may follow a claim, as otherwise I may justify the ‘Manual’ by simply saying the truth, that it is absolutely coincidental if some aspects allow the recognition of a person who has never been involved in the rest, thus creating confusion in people being in knowledge of the same.Even if it were the same for Inés de la Fressange, also coincidental, if it ever happened, I don’t think it causes any damage whatsoever to her public image, on the contrary. A Russian Prince is always helpful in those environments even if invented.Concerning the rest (were it Maxime Catroux, Gregory Leurent, and some others) I have proofs which are evidence enough, and proof also of the attempt of solution in legal ways (the same for the German School of Guayaquil), or in any case, of attempt of solution on amiable ways, which has been rejected in those cases, though not in others which consequently do not see their story in my yellow press department.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: